k 



“Books are Weapons in the 

ii 

War of Ideas” 


A panel discussion 
sponsored by the 

COUNCIL ON BOOKS IN WARTIME 

and 

THE NEW YORK TIMES 
The New York Times Hall, New York City 
Wednesday, May 13, 1942 








T his panel discussion on books in wartime was held 
under the auspices of the Council on Books in War¬ 
time and The New York Times, in The New York 
Times Hall, Wednesday evening, May 13, 1942. Mem¬ 
bers of the panel were: 

Clifton Fadiman, Chairman 
William Rose Benet 
Major Alexander de Seversky 
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph I. Greene 

John Kieran 
Eric Knight 
Paul Schubert 

Rex Stout 

X# 

* 4 > 

\ ‘ " *U 

\ % r i- A— 

L ,*« c } tfnv- 





“Books are Weapons in the 


War of Ideas” 


A PANEL DISCUSSION 

Chairman Fadiman: Ladies and Gentlemen: This evening 
is the second, as I understand it, in a trilogy of evenings, the 
idea being to discuss from a number of viewpoints the place 
of books in the present conflict. What kind of books, I imagine, 
will be defined by some of the speakers. 

“Books are weapons in the war of ideas,” it says here. As 
to whether books are good weapons in the war of ideas, or feeble 
weapons in the war of ideas, is something perhaps that might 
be discussed this evening by the speakers. 


We owe this evening to the combined efforts of a large 
group of men and women connected in one way or another with 
the book business. Some of them are book sellers; some of them 
are publishers; some of them are reviewers; some of them are 
writers. All of them have an interest in books, both a specific 
commercial interest, in some cases, and a general professional 
interest in all cases. 

A large number of speakers—seven, I believe—have been 
gathered here this evening to express various points of view 
with respect to the question of books. 

I do not want to take up your time by keeping you from 
hearing them, but there are one or two things perhaps that I 
might say just as a way of defining our terms. In the first place, 
as I understand it, the discussion tonight will center in books, 
not in words. There is a very great difference. Books are words 
bound in a particular form, and sold—usually at too high a 
price, to far too few groups of people. Words, on the other 
hand, are a very different thing. You hear words over the 
radio freely; you read words in the pages of great newspapers 
like The New York Times (whose guests we are tonight) and 
also in the pages of the Chicago Tribune. Those are words 
that cost very little. 

Now, it may be that words in general are weapons in the 
war of ideas, and that books, which are a particular form words 
take, are not. But I hope the speakers this evening will speak 
of books. 

If they are going to speak of words in general, then they will 
have to speak of words in newspapers, words spoken in taverns 
and other low places (which are often very important), words 
in magazines, words used over the air. 


2 





Each of the gentlemen, I think, with the exception of 
myself at this table is an author. I am not an author, I am a 
book reviewer. The other gentlemen are authors. They write 
books, they tell people things. People who are specialists often 
get the feeling that their specialty is enormously important. If 
you go over to talk to the Theatre Wing, as I did two or three 
weeks ago, you will get the impression that actresses and actors 
can win the war. If you talk to the writers of books, you get 
the impression that books can win the war. And, I imagine, 
Colonel Greene this evening will know from his experience 
with other military men that those who are in the Tank Corps 
are probably of the opinion that tanks are tremendously impor¬ 
tant. If you talk to men in the Air Corps, they are of the opin¬ 
ion that airplanes are most important. That is the specialist’s 
viewpoint. 

It is naturally reasonable to assume that we are interested 
in something (and all of those here tonight are interested in 
books) and that that particular thing is of vast importance. I 
do not know how important books are, but these seven gentle¬ 
men here tonight are going to tell us. 

I happen to believe, personally, that words are not going 
to win this war. I have used too many of them too cheaply 
myself to have any too great respect for them. The only thing 
that will win the war—and this is not a military secret—is the 
killing of large numbers of Germans and Japanese. [ Applause ] 

My own impression is that the people who do the actual 
killing are going to win the war for us on the main front. Nor 
do I think—and here I take issue with many of my colleagues 
who are of a more idealistic bent than I am—that telling the 
truth is going to win the war at all. 


3 



I do not believe that truth is necessarily stronger than 
untruth. I do not believe it will matter a darn when the bombs 
begin to drop on this city and on Detroit and on Chicago (not 
so bad, in that case) that the truth that we have told in this city 
or in Detroit, or in Chicago is going to help us under those 
circumstances. 

I do not believe that “Truth crushed to earth will rise 
again” at all, unless the man who utters the truth is alive to 
make the truth rise again, and if enough of those truth-tellers 
are killed, and quickly, that truth will die. 

There is one other thing that we might think of in defining 
our terms. Books, as I said at the beginning, are products. They 
are sold commercially at a price. Books run at a price from two 
dollars up to five dollars. Most people haven’t got two dollars, 
and therefore most people do not read books. 

In considering, therefore, the influence of books on the 
war in general, and on the minds of American citizens in gen¬ 
eral, remember that the very great majority of them never see 
a book unless they have inherited one from their fathers and 
mothers, and therefore, that the influence that books have on 
people like those who are gathered here this evening may be 
incalculably large and may extend to only a small fringe of 
the population of this country. 

In other words, books, if they are to be made a really ter¬ 
rific weapon in the war of ideas, in my opinion, ought to be 
given away, just as words on the air are more or less given 
away. Books should be made a commodity, a utility. That does 
not mean we are going to do it. Some of my best friends 
are publishers, and I know that that is never going to be done. 
But a real weapon is a weapon that you do not have to buy. 
When a soldier is inducted into the Army he is given a rifle; 


4 


he does not have to buy a rifle. If books are to be made real 
weapons, I know they cannot be given away but perhaps they 
should be made much cheaper than they are. 

Well, that is plenty from me. 

The evening’s program is divided into two parts. We are 
going to have a number of very informal talks from these seven 
gentlemen, who will speak from three to ten minutes. I shall 
ask each of them not to speak longer than ten minutes. After 
they have finished we are going to have a round table discus¬ 
sion—or is this a round table? It is part of an ellipse; an ellip¬ 
tical discussion, then. [ Laughter ] But whatever it is, I am 
going to ask a number of questions, some of which will come 
out in the course of the evening, some of which are merely 
noted down for me to ask, and any of the gentlemen here may 
answer or try to answer any of the questions. 

In this particular case, Mr. Kieran has a great advantage, 
because he has had experience along this line. [Applause\ But 
I will try to preserve a balance so that everybody will have a 
fair chance. 

We are going to begin tonight by listening to a man whose 
voice most of you, I am sure, have heard on the radio. He is 
a very well-known radio commentator on naval affairs, the 
author of a number of books, most of them dealing with naval 
matters. His latest is “Sea Power in Conflict.” I think you 
know Paul Schubert, a graduate of Annapolis, has served as 
an officer for five years at sea before he devoted himself to 
being a writer. We are going to listen to Mr. Paul Schubert, 
who is an expert in two fields—first, he is a writer of books 
himself, and secondly, he knows something about the war. Mr. 
Paul Schubert! [ Applause ] 


5 




Mr. Paul Schubert: I have approached the question of 
books during wartime from two aspects; first, after the last war 
I wrote historical matters about the last war, and among mat¬ 
ters, studied the books that were written during the war and 
got some perspective as to the approach they made to the war. 
Second, during the present war I have written one book, may 
possibly tackle another before the war is over, and have seen 
the thing from the inside of the problem of the author who 
must write a book while the war is on. 

As to the question of giving books away, it is very notable 
that the book which has had the greatest single influence upon 
the course of the present war I think was not given away in a 
single instance, barring a few friends of the author. I am 
speaking about “Mein Kampf,” which was a tremendously 
profitable venture for the man who put it out and saw that the 
book had the widest sale of any current book during our time. 

“Mein Kampf” is a typical example of one form of book 
intended to promote military operations. The time of a war is 
only a time of fact, of details, of exact information to the generals 
who conduct the military operations. From the broader point 
of view, war is a time of passion, of emotions, of feelings of 
people who are willing to endure hardship in order to get an 
end, who spend their feelings as people in time of peace spend 
money. 

When it comes to influencing those feelings, books, be¬ 
cause of the solid reputation of the thing between covers as 
compared to a thing in newsprint or spoken over the air, have 
an air of authority that makes them very powerful weapons in 
the war of ideas. 

In contrast to the approach of the totalitarian states which 
rigidly limit the ideas that are put out beween covers, democ- 


6 


racies have to approach a thing like war from exactly opposite 
points of view, and it is notable that the books which have been 
produced during the years since 1939 which are now coming 
out, represent the greatest possible diversity of opinion. 

Those books argue passionately for a great variety of 
weapons, for a great variety of strategies, a great variety of 
ways to win the war, and out of that form in which it is pre¬ 
sented to the limited audience that reads books, are then passed 
on by their wider influence through newspapers which they 
write and the radio programs which are put together and are 
then passed on to the mass audience in one way or another. 

The books now being produced are a forum of ideas, pas¬ 
sions and emotions which are very definitely playing a part, 
for better or for worse, in our conduct of the war this year. 
Education and information may be weak weapons but they 
are in many ways the best primary weapons that a democracy 
has, and if we can survive it will be by “jelling” the ideas cur¬ 
rent in a time of war and impressing them upon Congress, and 

\ 

in that way, by what we call “power politics” in a democratic 
sense, impressing them upon our leaders and getting done what 
we want done. 

For that reason I think that, whether it is the best way or 

not, the way we have approached the problems of books in war- 

/ 

time is the only way possible for this country. And so far as 
I have seen in the course of the last two years, it is a way that 
is working out all right. 

Thanks, very much! [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: I for one was delighted to hear Mr. 
Schubert say that if books are published, get Congress to read 
them. I had no idea that that was possible. I have not seen 


7 


very much indication that Congress in general reads books, 
shall we say, voraciously. [ Laughter ] 

As for the sale of “Mein Kampf,” that is perfectly true; it 
had an enormous sale, and still has, but not entirely of what you 
would call a voluntary nature. True, people can buy “Mein 
Kampf,” but all of Germany is a sort of compulsory Book-of- 
the-Month Club—they sort of have to take it. [ Applause ] 

We are going to listen next to one of our most distin¬ 
guished poets and editors who has been connected for many 
years with the Saturday Review of Literature. He has written 
a great many books, many of them books of poetry, and this 
year one of his books, “Dust Which Is God” is the Pulitzer 
Prize Award. 

We are going to listen to Mr .William Rose Benet! [ Ap¬ 
plause ] 

Mr. William R ose Benet: Ladies and Gentlemen: I take 
slight issue with the Chairman tonight in his remark about 
“truth crushed to earth.” The winning of a war (and it has 
been going on since mankind first began) is^always accom¬ 
plished by weapons, by armies, and the best weapons known 
to man. At the same time, it seems to me that the truth is the 
most important thing in the world, and the thing that all writers 
should represent and try to arrive at. 

Of course, as a famous English poet once said, “The truth 
is mighty and shall prevail, when none cares whether it pre¬ 
vail or not.” But that is a rather skeptical attitude toward the 
truth. 

In this particular war, it seems to me that truth is tremen¬ 
dously important. Naturally we will win the war by having 
the best fighting force. The United Nations will win it by being 
stronger than the Axis; but nevertheless, it is very important to 


8 


the writers, it seems to me, to keep before the public (and this 
is their chief function, as it seems to me, in this war) the truth 
as we see it, which I think we today see pretty clearly as opposed 
to the ideals of our enemies. 

Hitler has been very frank in backing what he calls the 
“dynamic lie.” The other day I spoke at West Point to the third 
class, and in that probably rather dull talk I nevertheless stressed 
this idea of dynamic democracy, and of them, as future officers 
in the United States Army, and all of us being together in the 
forces fighting for that particular thing. 

In a way, it is a vague thought, I suppose. You have per¬ 
fectly logical schemes worked out by the Communist party, for 
instance, and other political parties; but nevertheless, in gen¬ 
eral we are backing, and I think we are going to win for that 
very thing which can develop into something very remarkable 
—dynamic democracy. 

But what I am chiefly supposed to speak on this evening, 
I think, is the role that verse might play, being a versifier. 
Poetry is a different thing, and you cannot write poems to order, 
as everybody knows. The poets of America can do a job for 
their country in various ways now. They cannot write poems 
to order, but they may be able to turn their gifts of versifica¬ 
tion into fields of propaganda as a side issue to their art, which 
may be very useful. Or they may go into the Army. That will 
depend upon their physique and their circumstances. [ Laughter ] 

As for popular poems and their influence on people, we 
have an instance today in Mrs. Alice Duer Miller’s poem, “The 
White Cliffs.” Quite aside from your opinion as to whether 
that is great poetry or not, it is a poem that has had a great influ¬ 
ence in this war. It has had a great influence for the simple 
reason that Mrs. Miller reflected in it the feelings of the major- 


9 


ity of people toward England, a country with whom in the past 
we have had our differences, but a country many of whose ideals 
we greatly respect. Mrs. Miller happened to say the whole thing 
in a compact form that most people agreed with. And it was 
necessary to say. 

I myself got worked up during the time when I felt that 
it seemed that England really was in great danger of being 
invaded, and the great contribution that England has made to 
literature seemed in danger of being overwhelmed, and I wrote 
a short three verses called “Prayer for England,” which Frank¬ 
lin P. Adams printed in his “Conning Tower.” That happened 
to be picked up and printed or reprinted in England. 

I do not defend it as a poem at all; it probably is a bad 
poem. But it happened to reflect the feelings that most people 
had about England at that time; for that reason it was quite 
widely read. 

Now, that sort of thing where the versifier, we will say, 
can reflect the common feeling of the people toward an issue, 
is very valuable. They needn’t call it poetry. There is a great 
wealth of heroic material appearing in the newspapers every 
day today. There is so much that poets as well as prose writers 
ought to be able to make use of it. 

In time of war it has been proved that people turn to 
poetry, as was proved in the case of England when she was 
almost subject to invasion and was subject to terrific bombing. 
One member of a publishing firm over there told me that as 
never before they were buying books of poetry. That is because 
people turn to poetry for a sustaining and vitalizing influence 
in time of stress, and also for an emotional outlet. 

As I say, poets can turn their gifts to writing verses for 
various parts of the war effort. Poets can do all sorts of things. 


10 


We have an instance of an outstanding poet in charge of the 
OFF, and also head of the Congressional Library, in Archibald 
MacLeish, who is doing a great deal for his country. Poets are 
needed today over the radio, and can do a great deal in that way. 

My brother, Stephen Vincent Benet, has done a great deal 
in writing sketches for the radio as propaganda for this war. 
I believe in that not as a side issue, because it is very important, 
but as an adjunct to their regular work, the inspiration of which 
cannot be controlled; I believe that poets can do a great deal 
in writing and in radio work, dramatic work, to help our pres¬ 
ent war effort. 

Thank you! [Applause'] 

Chairman Fadiman: Thank you, Mr. Benet. Remember 
that when we thought of this little discussion I said, “Let’s keep 
in mind the fact that books and words are sometimes not the 
same thing.” In the case of “The White Cliffs,” by Alice Duer 
Miller, there you have an example of a book which was pretty 
influential as a book, which was bought by a couple of hundred 
thousand people who amount to an infinitesimally small frac¬ 
tion of the citizenry of this country, but the real effect began 
to be noticed when Lynn Fontanne read it over the radio. 

When you can carry words to a mass medium, I think they 
begin to have a tremendous influence, as has been the case, as 
Mr. Benet reminds us, with some of the moving sketches and 
plays of Mr. Stephen Vincent Benet. 

The next speaker is a man of action, a kind of poet of the 
air, one might say, because some of the machines that he has 
invented have a grace and a poetry about them which perhaps 
even a regular poet might envy. Major de Seversky is an Amer¬ 
ican citizen who was born in the homeland of one of our Allies, 


11 


Russia, although at that time it had a somewhat different set-up. 
[Laughter\ 

Major de Seversky was one of the greatest of Russia’s aces 
in the last war, and many would consider him to be the greatest. 
He came here at the end of the war and has remained here ever 
since. He became a United States citizen in 1927 and was com¬ 
missioned Major in the Air Corps Specialists Reserve in 1928. 

You know he has been responsible for some of the most 
important improvements in the design of airplanes and in the 
design of the bomb-sight of modern times. Major de Seversky 
is particularly qualified to speak to us on the role of books in 
wartime, because he is the author of a book, a recent one, which 
unquestionably has had a great influence on people’s thinking. 
I am referring, of course, to “Victory Through Air Power,” 
and I am most happy to introduce Major Alexander de Sever¬ 
sky! [ Applause ] 

Ma'joi‘ Alexander de Seversky: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and 
Gentlemen: I am flattered and quite a bit embarrassed to find 
myself in company with so many famous authors. On the whole, 
I should say I am more embarrassed than flattered. In fact, I 
shall feel a lot better if I emphasize at the outset that I am here 
as an aeronautical engineer and student of aerial strategy rather 
than an authority on war books. The only book with which I am 
thoroughly familiar, I am sorry to say, is the one I wrote myself 
—“Victory Through Air Power.” [ Laughter ] 

Books like mine, like Mr. Schubert’s and Colonel Greene’s 
and the like, raise the whole issue of whether we are justified 
in publicly discussing questions of strategy in time of war. 
There are military men in high places who resent such books. 
Strategy is the domain of experts or specialists or professionals 
only, something that the public should be taught to accept 


12 


respectfully without questions. I am convinced that their view¬ 
point is a mistaken one. 

I believe that the public interest in the question of larger 
strategy, the public excitement over new weapons and new 
methods of conducting war, show a wholesome eagerness to 
take part in the war. It seems that the American people are 
anxious to participate not merely with their bodies and their 
money but with their minds. 

The old division between civilians and combatants has been 
wiped out. The advent of air power has stirred the entire nation 
into a three-dimensional front, and every resident of the nation 
into a direct participant. The public not only has a right to 
know the main lines of strategy, but it has a duty to understand 
those lines and to contribute their brainpower to the total effort. 

I happened to be in France just before the war started. The 
nation was blindly proud of its brilliant General Staff as a kind 
of hangover from the previous war. Those few who dared to 
criticize the defensive strategy represented by the Maginot Line 
were considered heretics and meddlers. 

By this time we know that those who looked with fear and 
misgivings on the German Luftwaffe and the German Panzer 
Divisions were closer to the reality of modern warfare. We 
know by now how much better off France might have been if 
they had been encouraged to probe and to criticize the strategy 
in the military domain. 

When it comes to new weapons which revolutionize the 
science of war, like aviation, intelligent laymen are often in 
a better position to judge and to act than the professional mili¬ 
tary men. The civilian at least has nothing to unlearn; he can 
follow the logic and the common sense of a situation without 
having to jump the hurdles of prejudice, inhibitions, lifelong 


13 


training and older methods, and a natural desire to save face 
and prestige for an older service. 

In our great democracy, I believe an enlightened public 
opinion on the broader strategic problems is absolutely neces¬ 
sary. The official information, after all, is one-sided in the 
sense that it is always an education in the course now being fol¬ 
lowed. We must have unofficial and unorthodox presentation 
of the facts so that the people can have both sides of the great 
military questions before them. 

In relation to air power specifically, it is a fact that public 
opinion is away ahead of official military opinion. The ordi¬ 
nary outsider sees the obvious absurdity, for instance, of leav¬ 
ing our air forces divided and without unity of command. The 
layman senses that the struggle for command of the skies is the 
most important factor in modern warfare. Unlike the orthodox 
military men, he does not try to squeeze the new facts into the 
old strategic forms. On the contrary, he wants to give the new 
weapon unlimited scope for development, and so if there is 
one idea that I can hope to contribute to this weighty discussion 
it is this, that the American people should be encouraged to 
think strategy, to talk strategy and to understand the war effort. 

In total war there is no place for the mystery and technical 
hokus-pokus that used to surround war. Every American is a 
participant. Every American should comprehend what he is 
doing and why. 

War books, therefore, are a genuine consideration and con¬ 
tribution to the total war enterprise. They can provide ad¬ 
ditional leverage in obtaining what all of us in our different ways 
are after, a decisive victory and a durable peace. [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: Thank you, Major de Seversky. 

I introduce the next speaker with particular pleasure, per- 


14 


sonal pleasure, because without him I would be unable to make a 
living. [Laughter and applause ] Of course, I think that is a very 
small contribution to the war effort, I will admit. [ Laughter ] 

I think you all know of whom I am speaking. He makes a liv¬ 
ing, such as it is, by working for The New York Times as their 
sports expert, and of course you know him on one of the finest 
radio programs. This program you can hear every Friday night 
at eight o’clock on the Red Network. [ Laughter ] 

But I think that Mr. Kieran is not here either as a general 
expert or as a sports expert tonight. I should like to introduce 
him as a man who knows more about literature than practically 
any professional litterateur I have ever met. Mr. John Kieran! 
[Applause] 

Mr. John Kieran: Thank you, Kip. Ladies and Gentle¬ 
men : I think the best thing for me to do would be to reach over 
and get Major de Seversky’s speech and read it over again. 

[Applause ] 

With regard to this problem of books in war, I think that 
is like getting equipment for war. We have so many different 
branches of the service. In the first place you have the Army 
and the Navy and the Air Corps. Then we have Artillery and 
Communications, and then the Mechanized Division and the 
Cavalry, Machine Gun, and all that. 

You give them different ammunition and different weap¬ 
ons, and I think you must do the same with books. There are 
certain books that you want for certain kinds of people, and 
other books you want for other kinds of people. Some kinds 
of books you want for the men in the services, and other books 
you want for civilians, and the background. 

I believe that books like Colonel Kernan’s book, “Defense 
Will Not Win the War,” is a very good book for a certain part 


15 


of the population to take up. I believe that Sam Small, the 
“Flying Yorkshireman,” is another good book for another large 
part of the population to read. I believe Bob Considine has just 
written a paper-covered book selling for fifty cents which is 
called “MacArthur the Magnificent,” and if I had any influ¬ 
ence in this country I would have a million copies of that printed 
and given away. 

I think it would be a great thing for all the young people 
of this country to read that book, because it would give every¬ 
body a lift in these times. 

I believe that poetry can help to get us set for the job we 
have to do. I do not think I would hand out Wordsworth at 
this time, I think I would rather have Kipling. That is what I 
mean. 

We have a task to do. Now, if you had a wagon and were 
hauling a load (and we are all liable to be having wagons pretty 
soon), and you got a dry axle and were stuck every few minutes, 
and you had to wait until that-xooled before you could go 
on, if a man came along with a bag of pure gold with him, it 
would do you no good at all. But if a fellow came along with 
a small fifteen-cent box of axle grease, that would be great, and 
you would get going. 

Whatever it is we need, whether it is axle grease or gold, 
that is what I think we should turn out and should encour¬ 
age and be for in the literary way. It may not mean sticking to 
the highest standards of literature at the moment, but I think 
the chief thing that we have to do, all of us now, is to win this 
war, and I am for any kind of literature that will help win the 
war. 

I would like to pick up periodicals now and read these war 
stories, Mr. Forester’s naval stories, and the “Sam Small, the 


16 


Flying Yorkshireman” stories (that’s a free ad, Eric) and of 
course, perhaps Major de Seversky’s book. But that is for a 
different type of person. You wouldn’t find it of any use to 
hand that out in the subway, because not enough people would 
be able to grasp the problem as he presents it. 

I believe the A1 Williams series of articles in the World- 
Telegram on air power are good. These are all good; they 
appeal, however, to different classes, to different minds, and 
we must get out the literature that will reach all these different 
classes and different minds and different men in different places. 

To skip any part of that would be like leaving one branch 
of our armed forces without equipment and supplies. I think 
we need a united effort to put over a whole job and I think it 
is going to take a good deal of equipment of various kinds. 

Thank you, very much! [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: Thank you, John. 

In introducing the next speaker I feel it is my duty to refer 
back to what Major de Seversky said when he said that the lay¬ 
man is often in a better position to grasp new strategical ideas 
than is the professional soldier. Perhaps it is only fair to have 
a professional soldier here to speak for the services, and perhaps 
to lock horns with the Major, and so we have with us a man 
who is in the fighting forces today, connected with the ground 
forces, a graduate of West Point and the author of a leading 
service magazine, “The Infantry Journal,” which I imagine 
contains material far more interesting to read these days than 
most of the novels and books of history I have to review. If you 
would like to send it to me, Colonel, I would be very glad to 
read it. 

I am very happy and proud to introduce Lieutenant Colonel 

■■ 4 ' 

Joseph I. Greene! \Applause~\ . 


17 


Lieutenant Colonel Joseph I. Greene: Ladies and Gentle¬ 
men: A central thought that the Council on Books in Wartime 
has is that books are weapons in the war of ideas. But I believe 
we can go farther than this. Long since, the war of ideas has 
also become a war of battles on every place in the earth. I 
believe that books are not only weapons in the war of ideas, but 
weapons and tools in the war of battles. 

In the broadest sense, all books, of whatever kind, have a 
military value. All books help to make the people of a nation 
what they are, and these are the same people who make up the 
armies for the wars that inevitably seem to come. 

In a total war, moreover, I think we must say that the 
books a nation writes and reads and treasures on its library 
shelves are a part of its military strength, for they are a vital 
part of the nation itself. But to weigh the books of a nation in 
the scales of war would be a year’s job for a General Staff in 
collaboration with those who know books best. I shall there¬ 
fore narrow it down to a sector in the battlefront of books that 
will not take more than a few minutes to reconnoiter. 

There is the sector of standard military books, books for 
the citizen and soldier that help them to learn of the means and 
methods of war, books that were neglected for twenty years 
before this present war except by military leaders and a score 
or so of poets and writers realistic enough to know that war 
might come again, and that the military must somehow con¬ 
tinue as a normal side of American life. 

Best books are of more than one kind. Some are practical 
texts about weapons and fighting, and these must be revised 
whenever new weapons and ways of war appear. More of 
them, however, are historical in basis because some sides of 
warfare do not change. For example, you will find again and 


18 


again in such books how an army must never let an enemy 
attack by surprise, and the ways in which leaders of troops 
guard constantly against such attacks, lessons that commanders 
of armies of a dozen nations, and the nations themselves, have 
tragically neglected. 

Indeed, all the problems the leader must meet and train 
for in directing and inspiring his troops are found in these 
books. During the twenty years of peace a few small publish¬ 
ers kept the standard military books alive and now the country 
as a whole is finding that such books do exist, that most of them 
are readable, and that there is much to learn from them of war. 

A great expansion has also come, of course, in the writing 
of military books for the citizen himself, books written to 
explain war to the general reader who now wants to know more 
about it. 

I agree heartily with Major de Seversky in his opinion that 
such books are of value. If I may be frank, there was a lack of 
realization to begin with, that to write on total war, or for that 
matter, any kind of modern war, was a duty of writers. A more 
inaccurate group of books on any subject than those produced 
on war in 1939 and 1940 has never come from the American 
binders. [ Applause ] 

There are some fine exceptions, of course, and last year and 
this we have seen the quality and the accuracy of these books 
steadily rise. The citizen has now available, at least, one ably 
written book on almost every aspect of warfare. These are often 
helpful to the soldier as well as to the citizen. Anyway, the 
citizen is more and more the soldier or the potential soldier, and 
I like to look upon sound military books for the citizen or sol¬ 
dier as standing in a single category. 


19 


These are briefly the thoughts, thoroughly unofficial, that 
I have on books in war. Mr. Fadiman feels that you cannot win 
wars with books or with words. Perhaps not, but I am very cer¬ 
tain this war we are now fighting could never be won without 
them. [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: Thank you, Colonel Greene! 

I do not think the Colonel need have any worry, because 
if we are to judge from the number of books that are coming 
out on war, this war and several wars can be won with them. 
[Laughter ] 

The next speaker was born in England of Quaker parents, 
but that did not deter him. He ended up as a Captain in the 
U. S. Army. You know him as the author of the best seller, 
“This Above All,” one of the finest novels that has been pro¬ 
duced by this war, and also, as Mr. Kieran (who is, of course, 
paid for saying these things) has reminded us, he is the creator 
of the Flying Yorkshireman, Sam Small, a kind of Yorkshire 
Paul Bunyan. 

Mr. Knight was in the first world war. He enlisted in the 
famous Princess Pat Infantry. He got all through it and man¬ 
aged to stay a buck private without any difficulty, but later, as 
I told you, he became a Captain in the U. S. Army. [ Laughter ] 

It says here that he also gave up his art career because he 
found he was color-blind. I don’t see why that should have 
deterred him, because he could have become a surrealist and 
done very well. [ Laughter\ 

I am very happy to introduce to you Mr. Eric Knight. 

[Applause ] 

Mr. Eric Knight: I wouldn’t quite believe all that! 

I can start from books from any given point, but like a 
given point in a play, you have to give them point, and I don’t 


20 


know who gives it. But I will start from where you dropped the 
hint about cheap books. I think that is one of the important 
things of this war. We must have cheap books. It is part of 
this revolution we are in. We don’t make revolutions, we live 
them. Part of this revolution is this $25,000 ceiling, which they 
had to put in just when I wrote a best seller. [ Laughter ] All 
money values will go very quickly lower here, as in other coun¬ 
tries. I would like to see books come down; cut the royalties 
to the authors and they will get along. 

In England today, that is, in Britain (I’m sorry, our Propa¬ 
ganda Service says “Always say ‘Britain’ ”)—In Britain, then, 
there are millions of twelve-cent books, six-penny books, and 
they are exceedingly good and fill the bill, because in a war 
there is a great hunger for books. 

I pick a fight with John Kieran on the necessity for any 
stepping down in books. An army in wartime is a wartime 
army, and actually an army is exactly the same as a peacetime 
population; it has just as many intelligent, sensitive men, and 
among them there is a great hunger, a great cultural hunger. 

I know that in the last war many men satisfied that cul¬ 
tural hunger with small books—in fact, John Kieran himself 
showed me some time ago a small Shakespeare, and he hap¬ 
pened to say that he had carried that through the war behind 
Cambrai. And it reminded me that behind Cambrai one day 
I picked up a piece of paper, the torn page of a magazine that 
somebody had stuck into a package from home, and I started 
to read it. I was with the Canadian Army then. We could sit 
and read a great deal, because John Kieran and the American 
engineers were up in front with pick axes, and so I sat down 
and read this page. [ Laughter ] 


21 


I couldn’t make out what it was, it was torn, as I say, but 
I carried that page with me for a month and read and reread 
those four or five hundred words. It was glorious to me, it 
seemed very stirring. I made up beginnings and endings to it. 
It was not until three years later that I got around in peace¬ 
time to reading “If Winter Comes,” and discovered my four 
or five hundred words. I think I did a much better job of the 
beginning and the ending, to tell the truth. [ Laughter ] That 
is merely ego, though. 

The serious thing about cheap books is that in England 
there is no mediocre writing in them, and such books as the 
“Battle of Britain” and various sorts of reports of the Govern¬ 
ment come out free. Paper-bound copies are coming out about 
as fast as they can make them. We have just one problem over 
there in that connection, the shortage of paper. In the great 
blitz of 1940, Paternoster Row was about wiped out. My pub¬ 
lisher was about wiped out. I went into his basement, and he had 
copies of books dating all the way back into English literature. 
There were great losses there. There were losses in one library 
of 75,000 copies in Plymouth, and libraries in Birmingham and 
London were bombed and blitzed, and Guild Hall, and so forth. 

On top of that they cannot spare the shipping to bring paper 
pulp in to make up more paper, and it is now a case of how many 
copies of a book they can sell; the publisher says, “How many 
tons of paper can we allot to this particular book,” so that there 
is no mediocrity now. It is either at one extreme or the other. 
The most popular book right now is Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” 
—strange, isn’t it? You see soldiers walking along with “War 
and Peace” stuffed in their pockets. 

Another best seller now is “Orchids for Miss Blandish.” 
The author writes about American gangsters and sex. I don’t 


22 



know whether he has been in America, but he writes about 
America with amazing facility. Not bad. He has an amazing 
ear for dialogue, and in these books he writes at a tempo like— 
well, something like the subway at 42nd Street and Broadway 
at the rush hour. 

Now, between the two extremes, people don’t read. They 
are either at the top or at the bottom. The Government has done 
all it can to keep paper supplied for the publishing business. I 
think it is an important thing, because they have realized one 
thing, that in this war a few hyacinths for the soul’s sake can be 
quite as important as a loaf of bread for the body. 

The day of pamphleteering is back, and I think you will 
see it here. If it means cheaper books, I’m for it. [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: I know we were all very attentive to 
what Mr. Knight said. I have never seen more strained atten¬ 
tion given by any audience than by the thirteen publishers who 
are here when Mr. Knight referred to his willingness to have 
his royalties cut down. [ Laughter ] 

The next and the last speaker who will wind up for us is 
the creator of a very gratifying mystery, the famous detective, 
Nero Wolfe. He has written other more serious novels—per¬ 
haps one might even say less serious novels—than the Nero 
Wolfe series. 

Mr. Stout is known to all of us as not only a creator of Nero, 
but what might be called a kind of pamphleteer of the radio, to 
use Mr. Knight’s term. He is in my opinion, and the opinion of 
many, the nearest thing we have today to Tom Paine in this 
crisis. I know he will be very flattered by that comparison, par¬ 
ticularly because Tom Paine was inferior to him in one respect 
—he didn’t have a beard. [ Laughter ] 


23 




Mr. Stout comes to us as something of an expert on this 
question, also because he is the Chairman of a group of writers 
known as The Writers’ War Board, which is endeavoring as best 
it may to help out when any Government department wants 
something printed in any of the magazines or newspapers or 
wants it put on the air. This group of writers attends to that by 
mobilizing the efforts of others in this connection—there you 
are, always shoving the work on other people. [ Laughter ] 

Mr. Stout has a very intimate acquaintance with the written 
word—not books, mind you, necessarily—but the written word 
and what it can do to help the war effort. Mr. Rex Stout! 

[Applause ] 

Mr. Rex Stout: I would like to say to Mr. Fadiman that if 
he had to look for a pamphleteer for a flattering comparison, 
Plato had whiskers. [ Laughter ] 

British publishers certainly must be very polite. Mr. Benet 
says one of them told him there had been a very large increase 
in the demand for poetry in England since the war started, and 
one of them told me they were selling detective stories like mad. 
I guess they know what to tell us, Mr. Benet! [ Laughter ] 

The book I would like to whoop for a couple of minutes 
—and this may be kind of foolish and useless—is one which 
hasn’t been written, probably won’t be, and if it were written it 
would have to be given away. The first famous campaign 
biography in an American national election was written in 1860 
by William Dean Howells about Abraham Lincoln, and since 
then in every presidential election campaign there have always 
been campaign biographies. 

Last year there were (in 1940, that is) two given away about 
Roosevelt and one about Willkie. Three about Roosevelt were 
sold and three on Willkie were sold. 


24 




What I would like to see this year is a campaign biography 
written for the elections which we are going to have next 
November. I would like to see the Republican National 
Committee and the Democratic National Committee each do 
all they can to collect a large fund to finance it and pool the 
money, select a writer by common agreement, and call it a 
“Campaign Biography of America.” I think it would be a 
pretty good stunt. 

That does not mean that I think Parties ought to be abol¬ 
ished for the duration of the war—far from it. In many of the 
election districts it will be possible to continue, at least on the 
surface, this Summer and Fall, the election campaign, the old 
conflict, the old scrap of Conservatives against Liberals or 
Radicals, or Democrats against Republicans, or labor men 
against capitalist men, or any of the old lineups. 

But there are about eighty-five or ninety Congressional 
districts and Senatorial campaigns where I think it is not only 
desirable but essential to the winning of this war that the differ¬ 
entials between Republicans and Democrats or between Con¬ 
servatives and Radicals or Liberals be completely forgotten for 
the duration of this campaign. 

The war, of course, like every other war, has got to be won 
twice. We have to win the war against Germany, and we have 
to win the war against Japan, and then we have to win the war 
against the people in America who resemble those people who 
cheated us out of our victory the last time. [ Applause ] 

There certainly can be no question today in anybody’s mind 
that Senator Lodge and LaFollette and Johnson and others who 
helped them the last time, did cheat us out of our victory. We 
fought that war either to make the world safe for democracy, or 
for nothing, and they made it impossible for us to use our victory 


25 



in any way whatsoever to make the world safe for democracy. 
[Applause] 

Up in Putnam County, New York, part of the 26th Con¬ 
gressional District, where Ham Fish is going to try to get 
re-elected [ Laughter ] the situation is this: Fish is going to try to 
get the Republican nomination. He may not get it, and he may. 
If he does, then since that district is preponderantly, overwhelm¬ 
ingly Republican, if he is to be defeated a great many Republi¬ 
cans will have to vote for a Democrat. 

Now, if he doesn’t get the nomination, he is going to run 
independently. He has said so. In that case it is going to be a 
free-for-all, and there even is a very real chance that in that 
three-cornered fight the Democrats will try hard to elect a 
Democrat, and the machine Republicans will try hard to elect 
their man, and Ham Fish will go around and get the biggest 
number of votes, so that on Wednesday morning after election 
there will be a headline in The New York Times, “Ham Fish 
Re-elected by Plurality of 241.” 

The tragedy of it is, it would be so darned easy to lick him. 
The district is overwhelmingly Republican. In anything faintly 
approaching normal times, the Representative from that district 
will be a Republican, inevitably, so it seems to me that the only 
decent, even the only honorable thing for the Democrats of that 
district to do (and I am a strong Roosevelt man) would be to go 
to the Republicans and say, “We want to lick Ham Fish, and 
nearly all of you do. Since this is an overwhelmingly Republican 
district, you nominate a Republican, a life-long Republican of 
good character and in good standing, one who understands what 
this war is about and what we have to do not only during the war 
but after it, and all of us Democrats will vote for him, too.” 


26 


I know there are objections to that from the standpoint of 
practical politics, but I am not quite cynical enough to think that 
all practical politicians are incapable of patriotic action, or one 
which is obviously for the welfare of the country. If they were, 
certainly we would not be on our way to defeat even our outside 
enemy, let alone our inside enemy. 

Practical politicians, after all, are running our Congress 
and our Government, and I think on the whole they are doing a 
' pretty darned good job. 

Why can’t we go ahead and lick Ham Fish by so simple a 
method? 

Well, that is all; that is what I think the American Cam¬ 
paign Biography of America ought to say, and I think something 
like that ought to be done, and I think that is what ought to be 
done in about ninety Congressional Districts in the country. I 
think it could be put over, and I feel sure it can be. 

I will close with the comment that if I had a nickel now for 
everybody in this audience who does not even know the name of 
his or her Representative, let alone how he voted on any of the 
nine most important issues in the last three years, I would have 
plenty of money to buy all of these men a drink. [ Applause] 

Chairman Fadiman: I was glad to have Mr. Stout, who is 
an author, confirm the feeling I have always had as a reviewer, 
that the books which are not written are inevitably more inter¬ 
esting than those which are. 

Mr. Schubert, who has just left, had another appointment 
and could not stay for the discussion. I know you will excuse 
him; he wanted to stay. 

We are going to spend a half-hour or forty minutes, or as 
long as you wish or until these gentlemen get tired, in a very 
informal discussion of some of the issues raised in the course of 


27 


the talks this evening, and in discussing some of the issues that I 
shall raise myself by reading them off this paper. 

We do not have to stick to those questions, gentlemen, we 
can talk of anything we please, as long as it is in line with the 
subject of tonight’s program. 

I am going back to school now, and you raise your hand 
high (you remember, John, how that is done? [Laughter] ) if 
you want to answer a question or to interrupt someone else, or to 
refute anyone else, or whatever. 

Suppose we begin with a very simple question which may 
elicit a response that may be useful to some of us: 

“What book, in your opinion, has done the 
most to aid the Allied cause since the outbreak of 
hostilities?” 

I don’t know whether that means since Pearl Harbor, or 
since the beginning of the war itself. Suppose we take the latter 
meaning. Is there any book that any of you think has helped 
toward aiding the war effort perhaps more than any other? 

Mr. Knight: Modesty forbids me from saying what book. 
You boys all ought to help me out on that. [Laughter] 

Chairman Fadiman: I don’t think your modesty is over¬ 
weening. I can say, as a reviewer, that Mr. Knight’s book, 
“This Above All,” has certainly helped a great deal, perhaps 
more than any other book—perhaps there is no one book which 
has helped the most. Perhaps there is no way of finding out. 

Mr. Stout: I would like to say, after “Victory Through Air 
Power” and “This Above All,” I nominate Joseph E. Davies’ 
book, “Mission to Moscow,” because it has helped more than 
any other book. 

Chairman Fadiman: I think that would be true. Certainly 
Major de Seversky’s book has had an enormous influence, as had 


28 



Mr. Davies’—both have been best sellers, and, more important, 
books even if they are not read, are talked about second- or third- 
hand. 

Mr. Benet: Don’t you think Bill Shirer’s book, “Berlin 
Diary,” has had quite an influence, too? 

Chariman Fadiman: I think it has. 

Mr. Knight: I think, truly, that “Mein Kampf” has done 
more to win the war for us than anything else. [Applause] I 
know of no book ever written in my lifetime that so flagrantly 
and boldly announces just what it is determined to do to pervert 
this world if it gets a chance. Therefore, I think we should 
give the medal to Adolf Hitler for writing this valuable book 
for England and America. [Applause] 

Chairman Fadiman: I think it should be given him posthu¬ 
mously, don’t you? [Laughter and applause] 

Major de Seversky: I think I would like to mention Colonel 
Kernan’s book which I think made a remarkable contribution 
and service to our war effort. The funny part of it is that I agree 
with very little in this book. He completely ignores air power 
and the Navy, and still I think he contributes a great deal to our 
war effort because he has, for the first time, given us the impetus 
of offense. 

From the very beginning of the war we were stunned by the 
various surprises that our enemy sprung at us, and we gave the 
initiative to him, and accepted it as a regular procedure that we 
react to an enemy action rather than to act on our own. 

Finally, Colonel Kernan could stand it no longer and he 
decided it was about time for us to think in offensive terms, and 
whether or not the technical aspects of his book are practical or 
accurate in every detail, I think it did quite a service to the 
United States by giving us that offensive spirit at last. [Applause] 


29 



Colonel Greene : I have a point I would like to make here 
on a book of wide distribution. In his introductory remarks, 
Mr. Fadiman said that the soldier gets a gun. Also, the soldier 
gets a book, and he gets it free. There are nearly three million 
of them issued or sold. 

Mr. Knight brought out the point of the cheap book. The 
only way it was possible so far to get that particular book before 
the American public in general has been to issue it in a cheap 
form. I think it should be given away. I am speaking of the 
Official Soldier’s Handbook, which every soldier gets when he 
goes into the Army. It is nothing but a manual of what the 
soldier himself needs to know—how to take care of himself, the 
elements of war. 

I think in considering the effect of books in general on win¬ 
ning the war, you cannot pass over books of that type. 

Chairman Fadiman : You think it would be a good book for 
civilians to read, or is it intended entirely for soldiers? 

Colonel Greene : It is written in very simple language. 
[Laughter ] What I am driving at is that there is hardly any 
military jargon in it at all; it is meant for the new men. 

It has actually been in print for five or six years, but the 
Government only decided through the War Department to issue 
it a year or so ago. 

Mr. Kieran: There is another very important and very 
popular book that is issued for soldiers; I believe it is very 
popular. It’s called the “Pay Book.” [Laughter] 

But we are indebted to Germany for another great book. It 
is a technical book in its way. I have forgotten the exact title, 
but it was a book written by the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe, 
and it has to do with the physical requirements for modern com¬ 
bat flying and bombing. It came to British notice when it was 


30 



found to be issued to all German pilots, and they found a copy 
of it in the tunic of one of the captured German pilots. It was 
translated to find out what it was, and it was so good that now 
every British and Canadian pilot gets a copy of that book. It is 
of immense value, I believe. I don’t know that the American 
Army has gotten around to it yet—we’re a little slow—but when 
we do, I believe it will help us a great deal, too. And we ought 
to thank that gentleman, too—posthumously. [ Laughter ] 

Major de Seversky: I think there is another person we ought 
to honor here, General Mitchell. He wrote several books. 
[Applause] 

I would like to make a quotation here from something he 
wrote thirteen years ago, which is quite appropriate to our pres¬ 
ent situation. In 1929 he wrote, “Alaska is really the key point 
to the whole Pacific Ocean. Airplanes can fly there and back 
without taking on additional fuel. The best defense of the 
Philippines against the Japanese would be a direct attack against 
Japan from Alaska. To do more than this would mean a useless 
waste of life and material in case of war. Air power is a decisive 
factor in our defense of the Pacific.” 

Isn’t that remarkable? 

Chairman Fadiman: Now, gentlemen, with your permis¬ 
sion, suppose we go to another question I have down here. I am 
going to ask Mr. Knight to answer it, if he will be so good, 
because I know he has a special point of view that he wants to 
express. This is the question: 

“What older book or books that were helpful perhaps 
in the last war are still relevant today, and why are they 
effective?” 

Mr. Knight: Well, I think there are about three books from 
each country in the last war that could contribute greatly toward 


31 



American attitudes and towards war. One was an American 
book by the author Stephen Crane, “The Red Badge of 
Courage.” Curiously enough, that destroyed forever the card¬ 
board figure of the soldier who charged bravely into battle, and 
when the flag fell, he rushed to grab it, and when he died, he 
died singing “Just Break the News to Mother.” 

Crane’s hero never went to war. He heard stories as a boy 
in his town from the Civil War veterans, and they were talking 
off the record. He wrote a book in which, I think for the first 
time in modern literature, the hero ran away. He ran away one 
night; he fled in terror. The next day he joined the charge. He 
charged and was brave. No one knew why, and he didn’t either. 

Crane destroyed the cardboard figure of the soldier for the 
first time. Shaw did it later in “Arms and the Man,” but from 
that book stems our modern war fiction. 

In the Boer War there was one grand book—do read that, 
by Dennis Rise. It would be an important book to read today. 
After the World War we had a series of books which had 
something of great importance for today. In America, you had 
“Three Soldiers,” and of course “Farewell to Arms” was a grand 
book and still is. 

Another, “The Enormous Room,” is by E. E. Cummings, a 
remarkable book in that it has qualities that I think last. Of 
course, I cannot speak for the immortality of a book. I don’t 
know what it is. But those books are, I think, important. 

In England we have three books worth reading today, 
“Memoirs of Foxhunting Man,” by Sassoon, and another which 
came out as written by PRIVATE 24066. I think that last is 
the most remarkable book of all the war. I think it personally 
expresses most clearly what I felt during the war, so I am preju- 


32 



diced, of course, but that is a very important book, I think, even 
now. It lets you know how a soldier’s mind works. 

In France, of course, you had “La Croix au Bois,” by 
Gorgeles, and much later you had “Verdun,” by Roumeri, 
which came out recently. Those books had something to say 
and also “Le Feu,” by Barbusse. They had something to say 
about war from the French point of view. 

In Germany there was “Schlumpf” and you had, of course, 
“All Quiet on the Western Front.” Then you had one of the 
most important books, “Schweik,” and it is still a good one. It 
came out in Vienna and was written by a Czech. It was the 
only book, I think, written during the war and published during 
the war, in which war was satirized and mocked. Of course, 
“Schweik” was the oaf of a soldier—well, he was a pretty keen¬ 
witted lad, after all, who went through all those amazing experi¬ 
ences in the Austrian Army. 

Those books had one thing to say. Those books in general 
discussed the horror of war. Those books, however, do not suf¬ 
fice for this war. I think one who writes today and says exactly 
the same thing is absolutely dead; the book would be repetitious 
and would mean nothing. I think in this war there are added 
qualities that must come into a book. Lang, of the last war, is 
the only man to touch on it. He said, “War is not fought by 
gods, nor yet by beasts. War is fought by men, and being fought 
by human beings war is essentially human.” He was coming 
near to something, and that is the question I am touching on now. 

The question is, What is there about war? Why do we 
have wars? The rest of the war books, I think, that are to come 
out, to be written at a future date, will not only speak of it and 
discuss it and our disgust with war (for, heavens alive, we shall 
come out of it!), but they must go on. Militarists say that merely 


33 


to say war is bad does not settle anything. What the writers 
have to do is something further; to find out why we have war, 
and when we get the peace, what are we going to do with that? 
We have got to find out why this world keeps on having new 
wars, and why we can’t take a war to help us build a new world 
when we get to the peace. 

Well, thank you very much! [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: Are there any comments on older 
books that might be helpful or effective today? 

Mr. Benet: Just in regard to strategy in the Pacific, an 
obvious book, an older book, was written by a little hunchback 
many years before the last war, Homer Lea, who wrote “The 
Valor of Ignorance.” Clare Booth revived it or wrote a story 
about it in the Saturday Evening Post. That apparently called 
the turn on the Japanese in the Pacific at that time. 

Chairman Fadiman: Along that line, I wonder whether I 
might recommend a book myself that I read a couple of weeks 
ago. I do not know whether Major de Seversky or Colonel 
Greene agree with its conclusions. It deals with war in the 
Pacific and is entitled “Victory in the Pacific,” by Kiralfy. It 
impressed me as a layman, because it seemed to offer the most 
detailed account of how the Japanese military mind works and 
why it works as it does, why they fight in the way they do. 

Until we realize that they fight in a special kind of way, 
different perhaps from the armies of other countries, we may 
commit many costly blunders in trying to meet their attacks and 
go beyond them. It seemed to me one of the best books on strat¬ 
egy that as an innocent layman I had come across. 

Colonel Greene, did you happen to read that? 

Colonel Greene: I haven’t read it yet, Mr. Fadiman. 

34 


Chairman Fadiman: It hasn’t had a large sale because it is 
not written in simple language that the Colonel prescribed for 
civilians [Laughter], but it is an excellent book. 

Mr. Benet: Could we know the publisher? 

Chairman Fadiman: It is published by John Day, a very 
excellent publisher. (I hope he is here.) [Laughter] 

Major de Seversky: Another old book which I think is very 
timely is the book of Admiral Mahan, a remarkable book, be¬ 
cause you can take his book and substitute the words “air power” 
for “sea power” and it will be the most remarkable book written 
today, even more modern than my own. 

Let me impose on you once more by quoting from his book 
these statistics: 

“Changes of tactics have not only taken place after changes 
in weapons, which necessarily is the case, but the interval be¬ 
tween such changes has been unduly long. This doubtless arises 
from the fact that improvement of weapons is due to the energy 
wasted in men while the changes in tactics have to overcome 
the inertia of the conservative class, but that is a great evil,” and 
we do feel in aviation exactly the same way, that it is a great evil 
that it takes such a long time to change tactics and to adopt new 
weapons. [Applause] 

Colonel Greene: May I add just one word for the book that 
does not idealize war, but makes you feel that some things are 
worth fighting for and makes you wish you had been there. One 
book I am thinking of is “The Forty Days of Musa Dagh,” and 
others are “Arundel,” “Rabble in Arms,” by Kenneth Roberts; 
“Drums,” by James Boyd; “The Red Badge of Courage,” and 
“For Whom the Bell Tolls.” 

I think those books that picture war so realistically and 
show you there are sometimes things that you have got to fight 


35 


for should be considered as having molded thought since the 
last war and as being of extreme importance now. 

Chairman Fadiman: Along the same line, there are two 
books, and I might call them documents, which perhaps put 
more clearly than any of those, even, which Colonel Greene has 
mentioned, what we are fighting for. They are not read very 
much today, particularly in Chicago. One is “Federalist Papers” 
and the other is the Constitution of the United States. [Applause] 

Now I think we might perhaps go on to another question: 
“What is the value of books of an inspirational 
nature in a war of production like our own? What 
kind of books help morale, or do any inspirational 
books really help morale?” 

That is a kind of vague question. Any notions? 

Mr . Knight: I think all inspirational books help morale, 
because morale springs from inspirational qualities in life. 

Chairman Fadiman: I have often wondered whether mo 
rale in the Army itself, Colonel, is something that can actual^ 
be created by means of books, even partially. I mean, does the 
regular soldier actually feel a stiffening of feeling when he reads 
a book such as the ones we have been discussing? 

Colonel Greene: I think he does, Mr. Fadiman. I know 
many books—so does Mr. Knight—were read by soldiers in the 
World War. In this war you have an army nearly SO per cent 
high school graduates, or better. Therefore, there are far many 
more books read. I think undoubtedly what you say is true. 

Chairman Fadiman: Mr. Knight? 

Mr. Knight: Mr. Fadiman, I think that clearly an inspira¬ 
tional book helps in a war. I think that perhaps I helped in the 
last war, at least I sat in a trench a long time and perhaps helped 
by being present. The only reason I was present was that I read 


36 




a book by Ian Hay called “The First Hundred Thousand.” I 
remember reading that, and the next thing I knew I was on a 
train to Canada to enlist, so certainly inspirational books help. 
I know it had inspirational qualities, certainly. 

Chairman Fadiman: Well, there it is, you see. The ques¬ 
tion is whether any book is good that is inspirational, even if it 
is a lot of hooey, such as Ian Hay’s book, or whether books 
should be good and inspirational. I have never been convinced 
that Edgar Guest ever made a better man out of anybody, but 
he is an inspirational writer. I don’t know. I feel that books 
that have come out of the war so far are more honest, are truly 
inspirational in the sense that they are more truthful than some 
of the earlier books, such books as Arthur Guy Empey’s “We 
Were Young,” and “Over the Top,” and such nonsense. 

The books that have come out, books such as Mr. Knight’s, 
and others, seem to me to be of a thoughtful quality; they are 
not fakes. They were not endeavoring to idealize the soldier’s 
life; they weren’t endeavoring to catch you up in a whirlwind 
of false emotion, and perhaps, in the long run, the more truthful 
and quieter books have the finer influence. 

Here is a question which may seem a little tactless to ask 
in the presence of military gentlemen: 

“Do such books as Lieutenant Colonel Kernan’s 
book—which has been mentioned—‘Defense Will 
Not Win the War,’ and Hoover’s help or hinder 
the Allied Command?” 

That is to say, is it a good idea to release books of that 
thought, that type of thought, which allow civilians in large 
numbers to discuss what they say? Does that embarrass the 
High Command which, after all, has to fix the strategy without 


37 


reference more or less to what the public thinks? Any opinion 
on that? 

Mr. Kieran: I think that Kernan’s was a good book. 
Everybody is interested in that sort of thing. True, there is a 
lot of intelligent criticism and comment to date, and I do not 
think it is embarrassing to the General Staff, not even a little bit. 
But if Hoover’s book is the one, it first appeared serially in the 
Saturday Evening Post with regard to the causes- 

Chairman Fadiman: Herbert Hoover? I don’t know what 
that is. Do you know that, Colonel? 

Colonel Greene: It will be published, I think, in a week or 
two, by Herbert Hoover and some one else.* 

Mr. Kieran: He had a series of articles in the Saturday 
Evening Post with regard to the Peace Conference and also the 
last war. I should not consider that a particularly helpful book 
to come out at this time. 

Mr. Stout: That is not offense, it is really offensive, isn’t 
it? [ Laughter ] 

Air. Kieran: Well, no; I don’t care to make any criticism 
of a book on that basis, but I would make it on the basis that I 
used before in my metaphor about a wheel going dry when you 
have to haul a load. You don’t want gold or flowers or anything 
else; you want axle grease, and we want axle grease with this job. 

I think Bob Considine’s book that sells for fifty cents, 
“MacArthur the Magnificent,” is wonderful axle grease, and 
regardless of its other qualities, the forthcoming book of Mr. 
Hoover is not axle grease for this job. 

Chairman Fadiman: If the Hoover that is down here is 
Herbert Hoover, he will certainly neither help nor hinder the 

* “THE PROBLEMS OF A LASTING PEACE,” by Herbert Hoover 
and Hugh Gibson. 


38 



High Command. I don’t think they will pay much attention 
one way or the other. I think the purport of the question is, is 
it a good idea to have major strategical considerations discussed 
by the public in a general way which has never been done before 
to the extent that it is now? 

I attended a meeting at Columbia University recently. The 
boys got together—and the girls, for that matter—to hold a meet¬ 
ing to indicate they were anxious to have a second front opened 
up. These are the boys that are going to do the fighting, all 
youngsters, and they indicated their willingness to serve under 
such conditions. 

Is that a good or a bad thing, to have that sort of mass dem¬ 
onstration when, after all, the question of a second front is a 
matter to be decided by the higher military officials? 

Colonel Greene: I don’t think it has any great harm or 
good. We must always remember, in considering such books 
and such discussions, that those who write them—or, we’ll say, 
part of them—cannot possibly have the inside dope on what is 
happening in the war, what is available, and so forth. 

It is conceivable, I think, that such a book might be a bit 
embarrassing if it seized the whole public, but I like to see any 
book popular that will make people think about the war and 
make them feel more of a sense of participation in it. If it is 
a discussion of strategy, I think that is a fine thing. In general, 
I don’t think it does a bit of harm. 

Major de Seversky: I would like to refer to my original 
statement. This is a total war, and I think it is important that 
the people of the United States understand the strategy and the 
tactics of our various services, and in that respect I think Ker- 
nan’s book has made a wonderful contribution. 


39 




I think the strength of democracy lies in the fact that they 
understand the situation and pursue their course with open eyes. 
The Kernan book aroused terrific interest in what our people 
are doing. Some people, perhaps for the first time, heard the 
word “strategy” and they got all interested about it. People are 
getting more and more interested; they participate more and 
more in our military effort and, at the same time, appreciate the 
stupendous task that lies upon the shoulders of our military men, 
and they feel they all have to do everything possible to help. I 
think it is a very fine spirit. 

Chairman Fadiman: Thank you, Major. 

I am going to ask a question now which may be of interest 
to a fairly large minority in the audience. I know many of you, 
and I know many of you are writers. Many of you are male 
writers: 

u Can a writer—presumably a male—justify the 

continuance of work in his own field rather than active 

service in one of the armed forces?” 

That is a question that comes up in the mind of many writers 
these days. I wonder whether any of you would comment on 
that? 

Mr. Stout: I cannot conceive of any reason why you 
couldn’t substitute for the word “writer” the word “druggist” 
or “bus conductor” or “bank president” or anything else; it 
means precisely the same. I don’t think they are any different 
from writers. 

Chairman Fadiman: In other words, can he justify the con¬ 
tinuance of work in his own field? 

Mr. Stout: Not if he is qualified for military duty as to 
age, and so forth. I don’t think so. 


40 




Mr. Knight: Well, unfortunately, you are not either a 
druggist or a cowboy, or anything else, but if you are a writer 
you have a certain limit in that scope. I think the catch in the 
question is, what do you mean by his “own field,” “continuance 
in his own field”? What is the field of a writer in wartime, or 
in any time? The field of a writer in peacetime is to turn his 
attention, as best he may, upon the problems of the world he is 
living in, face them and, with supposedly superior observation, 
be able to bring to light the truth concerning them. 

Now we are as concerned in war as Charles Dickens was 
with bad prisons and child institutions of his day. 

The job of a writer—what is it? I think I see the job 
clearly. Most wars are not like the last wars; they fool us be¬ 
cause they are almost like them, but there is one little different 
thing somewhere, one bit of syncopation not in the last war. 

In this war there are new arms, planes, guns and different 
weapons and tanks, and then the fourth weapon, propaganda. 
That weapon of propaganda has destroyed some countries. We 
will win the war by making more and better airplanes, tanks 
and guns, and developing techniques and by propaganda, the 
secret weapon of our own, which is merely that of the truth. 
Who is going to pursue the truth? Mostly all of the writers. 
When a writer writes propaganda, he is turning his ability as 
best he may to serve his country. If his country says that the 
best thing he can do is to dig a ditch, then he must do that. 

In Britain, every man who can write is given something 
to do. Wells is part of a Planning Committee for the Peace 
that is to come. Two authors I know are in the Ministry of 
Food. Many are in the Ministry of Information. I think be¬ 
fore this war is ended here, no man who has facility and power 


41 



with words will be left who is not using that facility and that 
power to win this war. [Applause] 

Mr. Stout: Mr. Fadiman’s construction of what I said, 
through my own clumsiness, doubtless, misrepresented what I 
had in mind a little while ago when I said that a writer cannot 
justify not going to the battle line. No, I think any man can. 

If a fellow is twenty-eight years of age, physically and 
mentally competent and capable of going into the army and 
fighting, and if it is decided by people who ought to know that 
he will do better service in this war as the head of a chemical 
plant, because he is peculiarly qualified for it, or anything 
else, or in whatever category he may be in, then of course he 
cannot, he should not, go to the army, but should give that better 
service in some other way. 

One of the best known radio commentators in the country 
is crazy to go to the navy for a year now, and thousands of 
people are telling him he is doing a much better job for his coun¬ 
try where he is. And, thank heavens, so far we have kept him 
there. 

Chairman Fadiman: I think that is true of a small 
minority, but I cannot accept your high opinion of writers in 
general, Mr. Knight. I am a writer in a small way myself, so I 
assure you I have no bias here. I don’t think writers are very 
useful as writers in a war; not a bit. I don’t think writers, except 
a few, are valuable as propagandists. I think most writers are 
terrible propagandists. They are interested in themselves; they 
write things out of their own guts, and that is why they write the 
sort of things you read. And most of them cannot make the 
tremendous transfer to thinking on a broad, mass scale that prop¬ 
aganda requires. 


42 


Now, some can, Eric, of course some can; but not writers 
in general. As a class, it seems to me, they are no more useful 
as writers than plumbers are as plumbers. There are a few, of 
course, that are very useful, but I think they are just as apt to get 
a good propagandist out of an advertising agency, for instance, 
as out of the ranks of writers. 

I don’t know much about this, but it seems to me that about 
99 per cent of writers, when the draft call comes, should go to 
war. That is about all there is. 

Mr. Stout: In one sense, I violently and passionately 
disagree with you, and I need mention only one instance. In 
Steve Benet’s recent sketch, “They Burned the Books.” Steve 
is a writer, and a marvellous one. No advertising man in the 
world could have written that. And, after all, because they are 
not all Steve Benets, you cannot put them all, all the writers, 
into the army and expect Steve Benet to carry the whole burden. 

Chairman Fadiman: I don’t think there are enough 
Stephen Benets. There are some, by golly, and I think they 
ought to be made to do as much work as possible, and swell 
work. But most writers write to earn a living. There is nothing 
mysterious about that. 

Mr. Stout: Some day I am going to write a book, and it is 
going to be at least a best seller, a recital of the things Mr. 
Fadiman has said about writers in the last three months. 

Mr. Knight: Here is a little different point of view. If a 
writer serves in the army, is he actually fulfilling his function? 
I don’t know. Half his time he is writing and explaining about 
life, and the other half he is getting in a corner by himself and 
thinking over some philosophy of what life is: 

Chairman Fadiman: Most writers never do that at all, Eric. 
You should read the Saturday Evening Post. [ Laughter ] 


43 


Mr. Knight: I’m sorry I have an article in the next Satur¬ 
day Evening Post. 

Chairman Fadiman: Besides, you have to make an ex¬ 
ception for the Benets and the Knights. I am against this 
enshrining of a writer as a special type of individual, a guy who 
fits one word to another a little more cleverly than another, who 
should not be put in the armed forces. 

Mr. Kieran: I think you are kind of mixed up. Mr. 
Benet is not a Class 1-A, I believe, in age, and possibly a few 
other reasons, but I think that the young fellows in 1-A—writers 
or college professors—should go. I knew a great many writers 
in the last war. I knew them in France. I like to think that 
Sergeant Joyce Kilmer was a writer. [ Applause ] 

Chairman Fadiman: Sergeant Kilmer went to war and 
didn’t claim because he was a poet he should continue his work, 
work in his own field. 

Mr. Kieran: That is the point I was trying to make in my 
own way; all the writers I met in France were soldiers. 
[Applause] 

Chairman Fadiman: Good discussion, isn’t it? [ Laughter ] 

Mr. Knight: The main thing is, going back over the list 
I mentioned in the last war, I think none of the books was 
written by a man who was a writer before the war. I don’t think 
Hemingway or Cummings or Sassoon or Graves or Lang had 
ever written a line. They became writers not because they were 
writers who had to go to war; they became writers because they 
went to war and wrote about it. Possibly it will be the same with 
this war. Anyhow, you have a good crop of writers coming up 
in ten years. 

Chairman Fadiman: And bad ones. 

Mr. Knight: Pessimist! 


44 




Chairman Fadiman: Are you tired of that question? Here 

is an interesting question publishers have been asking them¬ 
selves lately: 

Should the government enter the publishing field 
with technical books on war and civilian defense?” 

Now, if the government becomes a publisher of books, these 
books will presumably be sold at prices much lower than a pub¬ 
lisher can afford to place on them. Do you think the govern¬ 
ment should become a publisher of books both on war and 
civilian defense? 

Mr. Knight: I say they will. If you wait long enough and 
your wood pulp gets scarcer, and they sink more boats and you 
can’t bring the paper pulp from the North, your paper is going 
to get scarcer and you are going to have rationing of paper to 
publish your books, and your government will inevitably go into 
the publishing business itself. I think it will depend on whether 
the war goes on long enough and whether enough ships get sunk. 
I don’t see any great harm will come out of it. 

Mr. Stout: What have they done in England? 

Mr. Knight: There is a terrific change. It does not matter 
what the things are in life, they must contribute to the war effort 
in England. If they want anybody to start saving shoe laces, or 
anything else, immediately a book comes out, a film goes out, 
and you have 40,000,000 people immediately responding to the 
internal propaganda. After all, about 90 per cent of the propa¬ 
ganda is for internal consumption, and only 10 per cent outside, 
you know. But you can get books free. 

Mr. Stout: Is the Government itself publishing itself? 

Mr. Knight: Oh, yes; terrifically, and they are the best 
pamphlets, with the best photographs, the best illustrated. The 
best account I know of the whole Battle of Britain, of the air 


45 


force, and all that, is a Government publication, and I think the 
cost is four cents or it is free. You have cook books, recipe books, 
books on how to use American Lend-Lease food, and the Gov¬ 
ernment is getting them all out. 

Chairman Fadiman: How do publishers like that, Eric? 

Mr. Knight: The publishers have all pooled together. 
They have been forced into a consolidation. The moment they 
had their distribution house destroyed about ten publishers had 
to get together and form a new distributing house. They have 
had to pool their resources tremendously. It is a consolidation. 
Well, in England, nothing gets in the way of the war, and every¬ 
thing is utilized to win the war. Books are an important way 
of influencing public opinion, and as long as they are, they will 
be used by the Government. 

I don’t think that means the Government is going to start 
a publishing business, but it certainly is in that field now for the 
purpose of winning the war. 

Chairman Fadiman: Are there further comments on that 
problem, gentlemen? 

Colonel Greene: I think the Government is already in the 
technical publishing business. I wish I had the figures. I’ll 
bet it is 50,000,000 books of a technical type issued by the Gov¬ 
ernment Printing Office in the last twenty years. Also, the law 
says that any time the Government needs a book written by any¬ 
body, it can take that book and print it without violation of copy¬ 
rights. That law has been on the statutes, I think, since before 
the first World War. 

Chairman Fadiman: A book already published by a com¬ 
mercial house—has it ever done that? That is quite interesting. 


46 



Colonel Greene: I am not sure it has. If it has, it is a mild 
policy, and it has followed a policy of not doing that if it can 
substitute. But there are, I think, 350 technical publications 
in the Army alone. 

Chairman Fadiman: Major de Seversky, how would you 
like a little lobbying in the Government Printing Office and get 
your book printed by the Government? 

Major de Seversky: I haven’t had that experience, but I 
had that same experience with my inventions. [ Laughter ] If 
the Government likes your invention very much, it certainly 
can take it. I think it has a right to take it, and I think it has 
a right to take books, too. 

Chairman Fadiman: Of course. I suppose those who do 
not agree with the thesis of your book think that is an invention, 
too? \Faughter\ 

Mr. Stout: There’s an idea for you, Kip: You might get 
all writers abolished by getting the Government to publish all 
books and give them away. [ Laughter ] 

Chairman Fadiman: You have me all wrong. I am not 
against writers—except as a class. [ Laughter ] I have a great 
admiration for writers; I live off them. But I think, as most 
reviewers, I believe, who have had to spend years doing what I 
do, think, (a) there is too much writing being done, (b) that not 
enough of it is any good, and (c) that because Writer A is good, 
and whether good or bad, it does not qualify all writers to be 
placed in a special category, any more than it does clergymen. 
I think of them just as I would clergymen, for example. I think 
they are O. K. I may be wrong. Now, whenever I am asked 
by anybody what I do, I say I am a “hack,” because that is what 
I am, and that is what 99 per cent of the writers writing in this 
country are, and the sooner they get wise to it, the better. 


47 


This is really all in connection with the war. I did not 
mean to impose my prejudices upon you. 

Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you thor¬ 
oughly. My- 

Chairman Fadiman: Stop there. [ Laughter ] 

Mr. Knight: My point in saying the writer has a duty in 
wartime is merely this, that everyone in wartime should use his 
capability to the best total effort. Good Lord, if a writer could 
make tanks, it might be a good job if we all could, but we can’t. 
Some of us can. Some of us can carry a rifle, some of us can’t. 
Good Lord, I wish my hair were gray as John Kieran’s. But 
there is a lot of propaganda in this war, and most of it is gotten 
up by writing men. I think it is very important that they should 
do a good job. You say 10 per cent? Well, all right, get the 
10 per cent to do the propaganda. Let them use their efforts to 
get this war over with as fast as possible. 

Chairman Fadiman: Of course, we do have a lot of writers 
in the Propaganda Division now, many of them very good 
writers. A good many of those get fired not long after they 
become members of the Propaganda Service. 

In connection with propaganda and words, and that sort of 
thing, I wonder if any of you have any ideas about internal 
propaganda and how it is being handled at the moment—any 
ideas, or grouches, or complaints? Do you think that internal 
propaganda is being handled to everybody’s satisfaction at the 
moment? Writers are back of it. 

Mr. Stout: I doubt if there is a single individual in the 
United States who is satisfied with the way propaganda is being 
handled, one way or the other. Do you mean the way the Gov¬ 
ernment information agencies are doing it, or in general? 

Chairman Fadiman: In general. 


48 



Mr. Stout: Of course, a lot of people feel that the Gov¬ 
ernment should not censor the radio, and then they learn to their 
astonishment and dismay that the Government has its own radio 
programs—like the one “This Is War 1 ’—and so far is it back 
from the Government censoring the radio, that the radio people 
censor the Government; they delete things from the Govern¬ 
ment’s program, which is something like man biting dog. Well, 
that is one kind of dissatisfaction. 

Another kind of dissatisfaction comes from the discussion 
as to whether or not propaganda or information, words put out 
by the Government information agencies, should be completely 
affirmative, or should in any respect be negative. That is, 
whether anything they say about conditions in this country 
should merely tell that this or that thing happened, and should 
never criticize any American for anything he has said or done. 

That is one big controversy which is not at all settled as yet, 
and it will have to be settled before this war is over. 

Another problem, of course, is that of the newspapers. 
There you have a little special problem. Newspapers will not 
criticize radio, and radio will not criticize newspapers. Well, 
maybe that is as it should be, but anyway, you have thousands 
of questions connected with internal propaganda, and I do not 
think that any one of them has yet been resolved to the satisfac¬ 
tion of anybody. 

Chairman Fadiman: All right. Are there any other prob¬ 
lems, or any other questions to be discussed tonight? I don’t 
want to keep this patient audience past its bedtime. 

I would like to say I know I express the feelings of all of 
you when we thank The New York Times for giving us the pos¬ 
sibility of this evening. [ Applause\ 

[The meeting adjourned at ten-fifty o'clock .] 


49 



L E 

RAI 

RY 0 

F CONGF 

ESS 







0 027 132 463 7 












